PER MR SUBHASH CHANDRA, MEMBER

1.      This first appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) is against the order dated 16.05.2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (in short, the ‘State Commission’) in Consumer Complaint No. 192 of 2015 dismissing the appeal on the ground that the complaint filed by the complainant through the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) is not maintainable on the ground that the complainant before the State Commission (present appellant) did not include his wife or had brought her Power of Attorney on record, with liberty to file the complaint in accordance with the law.  The appellant is before this commission with the prayer to

(a)    Allow the present appeal by setting aside the award/order dated 16.05.2018 passed by the State Commission, Punjab in consumer complaint no. 192 of 2015 and allow the complaint by directing the respondents to refund the entire amount paid by the complainant to them i.e., Rs 25,82,687/- along with interest from the dates of respective deposits till realization along with compensation and litigation expenses, thereby allowing the complaint in toto;

(b)    Any other or further order(s) which this Hon’ble Commission deems fit and proper may also be passed in favor of the appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

2.      The brief conspectus of facts are that the appellant, jointly with his wife, Mrs Ranjit Kaur Thiara, had booked flat no. F-4, 604, Lotus Towers, Jalandhar admeasuring 1565 sq ft vide allotment letter dated 26.07.2008 for a basic sale price of Rs 26,99,625/- in the project “Lotus Towers”, Shourya Greens, Jalandhar of the respondent by depositing a sum of Rs.89,121/-. A Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 27.07.2008 as per which possession was promised in December, 2009. Following the initial payment, further payment of Rs 24,93,566/- was made totaling Rs.25,82,687/-. Respondent intimated delay in construction and extended the date of possession to end of 2012. However, subsequently this was extended to 2014. Finding the construction work to be negligible, appellant issued a legal notice which was refused by the respondents and hence a complaint was filed before the State Commission (No. 192 of 2015) which came to be dismissed on the ground that the SPA was not valid and the wife of the appellant had also not executed a Power of Attorney. The appellant, who is a non-resident Indian, permanently resident in United Kingdom, contends that he had appointed  one Navneet Singh, son of Santok Singh as his legal and lawful attorney as per a Special Power of Attorney dated 29.05.2015. The Power of Authority was restricted and not authorized to sell, mortgage, and gift any of his property in India but to act on behalf of the appellant to execute and perform acts, deeds, matters and things in connection with

“i.      To appoint advocate/s, pleader/s, prosecutor/s, or any other competent authority for all purpose;

ii.       To sign, verify and file any petition, appeal, application and affidavit;

iii.      To file cases in any competent court/s and to complete the proceedings;

iv.      To produce or summon or receive back any documentary evidence;

v.       To plead and act in all those cases if so file by me or against me and to make any statement therein on my behalf;

vi.      To file application for execution of a decree or order passed in any case and to sign or verify such documents;

          vii.     To apply for inspection and peruse documents and records;

viii.    To apply and to obtain relevant document in respect of my properties on my behalf;

ix.      To represent me before any office/ authority of any state/ central government or local body which may be connected and/ or concerned with the said properties in any manner whatsoever and to make any statement, application, affidavit, undertaking etc., for and on my behalf and in their names in respect of the said property or any matter incidental thereto;

x.       Generally to do all other acts, deeds, things necessary for the above mentioned purposes.

And I hereby agree that all acts, deeds and things lawfully done by my said attorney shall be construed as acts, deeds and things done by me and I undertake to ratify and confirm all and whatsoever that my said attorney shall lawfully do or cause to be done for me by virtue of the power hereby delegated.“

The impugned order is stated to be perverse and is challenged by way of this appeal.

3.      The short point which falls for consideration is whether the State Commission’s finding that a Power of Attorney should also have been executed by Mrs Ranjit Kaur Thiara in respect of the flat in question and whether the SPA executed by the appellant was in order.

4.      Admittedly, the flat was booked jointly by both the appellant and his wife. The SPA has however, been executed on by the appellant in favour of the said Navneet Singh. There is nothing on the record to show that the appellant’s wife had legally conveyed her share of the flat to the appellant. Hence, a Power of Attorney by her in favour of the said Navneet Singh was indeed warranted. However, this has not been done.

5.      The State Commission has also held that the complainant has not made any averment that the Power of Attorney was fully made aware of the facts by him about the receipts etc. The State Commission has held that:

It cannot be taken that he knows all the facts of the case. Otherwise also the allotment was made in the name of complainant Satinder Singh and his wife, Ranjit Kaur, but she has neither been impleaded as a complainant in the present complaint nor her power of attorney has been placed on record. Both are joint allottees. In these circumstances I am of the view that the complaint filed by the complainant through special power of attorney is not maintainable and needs to be dismissed on this technical ground.

Accordingly the complaint is dismissed on this short ground. However it will not foreclose the rights of the complainant and his wife who can file their complaint in accordance with law.

6.      The appellant has relied upon the Special Power of Attorney which has been considered. It is manifest that the SPA has been executed by Satinder Singh, the appellant and not by Ranjit Kaur, his wife and joint allottee. Further, the SPA is not specifically in respect of the flat in question and with respect to proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act.

7.      In view of the foregoing, we do not find any reason that warrants our interference in the impugned order of the State Commission. In any case, the order of the State Commission does not foreclose the rights of the complainant and his wife. They are also at liberty to approach the State Commission with a Special Power of Attorney executed jointly in respect of the complaint with regard to the flat in question.

8.      In view of the discussion above and the facts and circumstances of this case the appeal is dismissed as without merits. Parties shall bear their own costs. Pending IAs, if any, also stand disposed of with this order.